The Mach 2 VC-10 - What Rough Beast

[Bangseat]

"Into the small back room he stole, the searching beam of his flashlight incising the damp, fetid air. Even the half-crazed, cackling beggar who had led him to this place had tried to warn him not to gaze upon the contents of the box. “There’s some ‘as tried, and ‘as been driven to th’bottle and t'madhouse, just fr’one litt’a peek at t’fearsome thangs what’s inside!” he had told him, with bloodshot eyes and whisky breath. He paid the grizzly old man his pen’north, and shooed him roughly into the night. He would not be deterred in his quest, not after travelling from the far Indies to the Americas in search of something which a hundred rational men said did not exist. And yet he knew, with all his heart, that the only objects which could possibly realise his sick fantasy lay in that box..a box which his flashlight now found, cobwebbed, battered and covered with a thick layer of dust, on top of a trestle table, like a cadaver on a gurney. 

 

His crowbar found the gnarly edge of the lid, and the box slowly creaked open…"

 

 

 

Like many, and I’m choosing my words carefully, I was slightly disappointed upon opening the Mach 2 VC-10. This is an iconic British aircraft, with gorgeous lines, a huge whiff of nostalgia, and a wistful history as the last all-British attempt at a commercial long haul aircraft. Building one in gentleman’s scale is a niche business of course, but not the realm of a few crazies either. Many of us know what to expect from Mach 2 in terms of moulding quality – rough surface, doobreys galore, a marathon of sanding and finishing – but there are innumerable technical reasons why small manufacturers struggle to make well finished products, and frankly, it is impressive in this sector to see a kit that is injection moulded at all.

 

But what made fists clench and hair fall out across the Britliner-loving community was the obvious shape errors in the nose. The VC-10 has an attractively, almost flush fitted window, with the entire nose section, glazed or otherwise, coming to a nearly uniform point. Out of the box, Mach 2 originally gave a windshield with a steep upward sweep, almost like a DC3. Mach 2 then issued a corrective part – in fact, I gather all models sold after Telford (eg via Hannants) had this as standard, but even with the correcting part, the shape looks more like a Tristar than a VC-10. There isn’t much to distinguish an airliner – they are all metal tubes at the end of the day – so the details really do count to make a satisfying model.

 

There is also the issue of variant type. Out of the box the hull is a short body with leading edge extensions. Such aircraft were few and only used by the RAF as C1Ks, so the parts do not fit the profile of any civilian airliners. So unless you like VC-10 C1Ks, you are out of luck.

 

But I’m still going to have a crack! This is very much going to be a skills development project. I may fail, but hopefully in a catastrophic and amusing way. 

 

The breakdown of Sisyphean tasks is thus:

 

Problem 1 – nose is wrong. So, I’m going to cut away the worst of it, make a buck that slots in with hopefully a closer approximation of the shape, and either vacform over it, or mould a solid section in clear polyester resin.

 

Problem 2 – can’t make an authentic civilian. So, the choice is either file down the wings to make a Standard, or extend the fuselage to make a Super. Well, in for a penny… After I did the Heller 707 over Christmas, I’d be gutted if my VC-10 was smaller. This will be a few chops, and a couple of fuselage plugs, one big, the other small at the rear. And to make the plugs, I’m going to deploy my beginner CAD skills, and the services of a tame 3D print shop.

 

Which is pretty much where I’m beginning, although first I checked the fuselage profile against an old Mike Keep profile from a vintage SAM issue.

 

 

 

Interestingly, it conforms very closely to the kit…although I much as love these old drawings, I do not rate it for accuracy as it scales up 20mm too short. The question is really how much do I add at the front and how much at the rear. I am essentially guessing at this stage, without a drawing I really trust.   

 

One thing I can do with some confidence is chop the fuselage behind the cockpit and ahead of the wing. This gives me two profiles and my first penny dropping moment. An airliner is pretty much a metal cylinder, and my expectation was that having learned how to extrude a circle (sounds painful, I know) I had this in the bag, but this is a Mach 2 airliner…

 

 

So the two ends of the ‘cylinder’ I need to make are actually fairly irregular ovalelograms or some such. Not impossible though…

 

 

Also, the rearmost 10mm is where the wing fairing starts, so the shape needs to develop some lumps at the back to conform to this (rather wonky) profile…

 

 

I’m using Onshape, which is available as free cloud-based software, on the condition that you don’t mind all your files being public, and that you can cope with a few very simple standard CAD features being disabled in a really annoying way. These include -

·        You can’t set line lengths numerically (you have to draw them carefully to length with the mouse)

·        You can’t change to mm – inches all the way.

·        You can’t, as far as I can see, import a reference image to sketch on top of. 

Basically, our relationship is not set to last. But, having learnt what some of the buttons do now, I’m on a roll and I can do what I need to on it for now...

 

 

Meanwhile, in the cockpit, traditional modelling techniques prevail. The offending nose OOB looks something like this:

 

 

So, I chopped the worst of it off: 

 

 

I created vertical and horizontal profiles, and started to make the form of the "buck":

 

 

The tip I have formed from Epo putty, as espoused by YouTube's David Damek. Its wonderful stuff to work with a wet finger, although I've had issues with it not curing in my cold attic, so it's the airing cupboard overnight. The buck is sitting on extra plasticard which I have enclosed the cockpit with, and will remove later, hopefully it will then look less like a C-46:

 

 

Next step will be some P38 and lots of sanding.

 

 

I think that'll do for now!

 

Edited February 12, 2020 by Bangseat

[Graeme H]

Lovely preamble, now down to reality

not that I have this kit, or even intend to get it, but just can't resist, so I'm in

[Bangseat]

Welcome Graeme!  

[Max Headroom]

Can I watch? I’ll shout encouragement from the sidelines!

 

Trevor

[Bangseat]

6 minutes ago, Max Headroom said:

Can I watch? I’ll shout encouragement from the sidelines!

 

 

Absolutely! Yes, vigorous exhortations to sand harder will be of great help.

 

[Doc72]

You should have listened to the half-crazed beggar ...

Seriously, that looks like interesting work.

[Robert]

This is the type of build l like, one where you use modelling skills to solve a problem. Keep it up.

 

Regards

Robert

 

[71chally]

Be interesting to see this one shaping up!

One thing I would add, especially as you're clearly putting so much modification work in, is that I would'nt rely too much on that drawing, it just doesn't look right to me, almost as bad as the kit but in a different way.

I have this shot which might help, deliberately taken at a distance that would reduce perspective effect.

 

VC-10 C.1K XR808 by James Thomas, on Flickr

[stever219]

11 hours ago, Bangseat said:

There is also the issue of variant type. Out of the box the hull is a short body with leading edge extensions. Such aircraft were few and only used by the RAF as C1Ks, so the parts do not fit the profile of any civilian airliners. 

 

One thing I can do with some confidence is chop the fuselage behind the cockpit and ahead of the wing. This gives me two profiles and my first penny dropping moment. An airliner is pretty much a metal cylinder, and my expectation was that having learned how to extrude a circle (sounds painful, I know) I had this in the bag, but this is a Mach 2 airliner…

 

 

So the two ends of the ‘cylinder’ I need to make are actually fairly irregular ovalelograms or some such. Not impossible though…

 

You could do one of the V.1103s from the box; these did have the Standard fuselage with the inboard wing extensions, as did the C. Mk. 1s before they got the tanker “K” suffix, but as you’ve started cutting up the fuselage........😬

 

The VC-10 fuselage isn’t (quite) circular, it’s more ovoid with the “narrow” end downward.  Vickers had started the design process with an outgrowth of the Vanguard which has a very obvious “double bubble” fuselage cross section but as the design evolved and grew this was eliminated, so maybe with their not-quite-cylindrical fuselage Mach 2 have tried to get it right.🧐😁

[71chally]

..hadn't noticed that comment, but yes Stever is absolutely right in that the VC-10 fuselage is not circular.  It is kind of double bubble meeting at the floor, but the outer structure is smooth to make it look more oval.

I should have a shot or two to show this, will try post later.

 

This is a good shot from the very useful VC10.net site,,

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/testspecimen.html

Edited February 13, 2020 by 71chally

[Bangseat]

1 hour ago, 71chally said:

 

 

VC-10 C.1K XR808 by James Thomas, on Flickr

Thanks @71chally! Actually I have your image from the RM thread scaled and stuck to the Mike Keep profile to improve it, and have derived the profile for the buck from it. It's an imprecise art and I can really only deal with 0.5mm either way with my eyeball and scalpel combo, but hopefully will get in the ballpark.

[Bangseat]

1 hour ago, stever219 said:

 but as you’ve started cutting up the fuselage........😬

Ah, with a Mach 2 kit, it feels less of a risk. More like assertive gardening than amateur brain surgery.

 

1 hour ago, stever219 said:

 so maybe with their not-quite-cylindrical fuselage Mach 2 have tried to get it right.🧐😁

Quite so! I stand corrected, who knows what other "unexpected right bits" this build will throw up 🤣

Edited February 13, 2020 by Bangseat

[bentwaters81tfw]

23 hours ago, 71chally said:

 

 

This is a good shot from the very useful VC10.net site,,

http://www.vc10.net/History/Individual/testspecimen.html

I have several photos of the inside of the engineering mock up both fore and aft, above and below the floor if you need them.

[busnproplinerfan]

I don't know what the wheels are  like but just saw these replacements for the Mach 2 kit https://air-graphics.co.uk/shop?olsPage=products%2Fac-244-vc-10-wheel-set-for-mach-ii-kit&page=2

It says they're coming soon, just thought I'd let you know.

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

Mach 2.... The Forbidden Gates to Modeling Horror.

The extent to which a fearless modeler will go...

Hic Sunt Dracones...

[Marklo]

I think this is why I scratchbuild, I only have myself to blame for the state of the build  

 

But I do reckon if every kit was perfect with refined detail and good engineering we’ed get bored pretty soon and go do something else.
 

I actually bought an Eduards SE5a about two years ago ( I’m going to build it this year) and the level of detail and engineering actually upset me for weeks afterwards, so here’s to kit manufacturers going all zen and making sure their work is a bit wonky in places.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Marklo

[pigsty]

33 minutes ago, Marklo said:

I do reckon if every kit was perfect with refined detail and good engineering we’d get bored pretty soon and go do something else.

I wouldn't!

 

There are many other small flaws with this kit, but one that's awfully obvious even to the casual observer is the windows.  The main problem is that they look like they've been typed on an old Remington with a dodgy return spring - no two at the same height, no two on the same alignment, no two the same shape.  And while the line on the back half is just about level, the line on the front half dips towards the nose.  I'll look forward to the fix you devise for that!

[Marklo]

Oh I see what you mean the windows wander! 

 

Hmm plug them with card ca’d n place, fill, sand smooth then redrill? 

Or alternatively skin the inside of the window with 10 thou card of Tamiya pl paper, milliput up the outside, sand smooth and then redrill, I’d probably print off a template and double sided sticky tape it to the fuselage as a drill a guide.

 

wouldn’t be entirely different to how I recover from cutting my trailing edges too short or too thick.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2020 by Marklo

[Bangseat]

39 minutes ago, pigsty said:

I'll look forward to the fix you devise for that!

Well, luckily, the front section is being entirely replaced with a printed part... 

 

(Cue cries of "well you may as well do the rest of the plane while you're at it")...

[Space Ranger]

2 hours ago, busnproplinerfan said:

I don't know what the wheels are  like but just saw these replacements for the Mach 2 kit https://air-graphics.co.uk/shop?olsPage=products%2Fac-244-vc-10-wheel-set-for-mach-ii-kit&page=2

It says they're coming soon, just thought I'd let you know.

My browser won't let me contact air-graphics.co.uk. Says it "cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified" and that it "it experienced an internal error. Error code: SSL_ERROR_INTERNAL_ERROR_ALERT." Says I am to "contact the website owners to inform them of this problem." But how do I contact them if I can't contact them?????

Edited February 13, 2020 by Space Ranger

[Bangseat]

1 hour ago, Marklo said:

 

I actually bought an Eduards SE5a about two years ago ( I’m going to build it this year) and the level of detail and engineering actually upset me for weeks afterwards

When I build Gucci kits, I find the plastic only deteriorates as a result of my modelling "efforts"! 

 

If that happens here...I'll take up cross stitch instead.

[Bangseat]

2 hours ago, busnproplinerfan said:

I don't know what the wheels are  like

Oh, you know, they're more or less... round 😬

[fjaweijfopi4j48]

2 hours ago, Marklo said:

But I do reckon if every kit was perfect with refined detail and good engineering we’ed get bored pretty soon and go do something else.

Err.. I hope you are speaking for yourself, Marklo.

A good, accurate kit can hardly get boring, and there is always room for more detail where you can hone your skills to your heart's content. Interior details, change livery, opening hatches and doors, deploy flaps/slats/etc., adding accessories (curtains, boarding ladders, ground equipment, lighting, cargo, etc. etc. etc.

In any case, if you want to suffer, there is plenty already on the market, no need to ask manufacturers to care less. Some are very good at it already.

Besides, I believe there is no danger of what you fear. kits will NEVER get perfect, and the best proof of it is that with today's free information availability, tooling, computer-aided design and master-making, still many get things quite wrong.

I think we should hope for better standards, and not convey the message that flawed is fine or fun.

But heck, to each his/her own.

 

Per chopping, filing, filling, sanding ad astra

Xacto in manibus, ad sidera visus

 

[busnproplinerfan]

5 hours ago, Space Ranger said:

My browser won't let me contact air-graphics.co.uk. Says it "cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified" and that it "it experienced an internal error. Error code: SSL_ERROR_INTERNAL_ERROR_ALERT." Says I am to "contact the website owners to inform them of this problem." But how do I contact them if I can't contact them?????

Strange, can you just start with searching for the site name? air graphics?

[Space Ranger]

8 minutes ago, busnproplinerfan said:

Strange, can you just start with searching for the site name? air graphics?

I changed the URL prefix from "https" to "http" and it worked. But this apparently means the site is not secure.